ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 40A(2)(b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 40A(2)(b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 40A(2)(b). observed that the appellant has interest related @ 18% whereas to other parties 12% accordingly allowed the paid related parties 12% and disallowed the (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. remaining interest. The appellant submitted had borrowed funds from banks and parties purpose of development its township project on which total interest

SHYAM SUNDER,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT(A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshyam Sunder Trivedi Ito1(4) Opp.-1 Vashundra State Bank Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

section 254(2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal. 42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, Judges do not make

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2. M/s. New Tech P.Ltd. 64,899 Total 1,00,650 7.2 The appellant had submitted that merely balance outstanding for more than 3 years cannot be the reason for taxing the amount to the income of the appellant by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Page 24 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the Revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” 5.13 The Hon'ble M.P. High Court had also categorically stated that “obviously, the CIT(A) not only

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 801B (10) (a) of the Act, inspite of a finding of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Ultimate fact finding Authority, that the Completion Certificate dated 24.12.2010 filed by the Petitioner clearly mentions that the project was completed in March, 2008? 4.1 As it is clear from the finding

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

2) (a) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub- section, and the Assessing] Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities